Sanlakas v Executive Secretary proclamation by the President of a state of rebellion for an

indefinite period.
DOCTRINE:
Petitioners in G.R. No. 159103 (SJS Officers/Members v.
The declaration of a state of rebellion amounts to a Hon. Executive Secretary, et al.) are officers/members of
declaration of martial law and, therefore, is a the Social Justice Society (SJS), "Filipino citizens, taxpayers,
circumvention of the report requirement, is a leap of logic. law professors and bar reviewers." Like Sanlakas and PM,
There is no indication that military tribunals have replaced they claim that Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution
civil courts in the "theater of war" or that military does not authorize the declaration of a state of
authorities have taken over the functions of civil rebellion.6 They contend that the declaration is a
government. There is no allegation of curtailment of civil "constitutional anomaly" that "confuses, confounds and
or political rights. There is no indication that the President misleads" because "[o]verzealous public officers, acting
has exercised judicial and legislative powers. In short, pursuant to such proclamation or general order, are liable
there is no illustration that the President has attempted to to violate the constitutional right of private citizens."
exercise or has exercised martial law powers. Petitioners also submit that the proclamation is a
circumvention of the report requirement under the same
The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in Section 18, Article VII, commanding the President to
submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the
calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a
proclamation of martial law. Finally, they contend that the
wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief presidential issuances cannot be construed as an exercise
powers. of emergency powers as Congress has not delegated any
such power to the President.

FACTS: In G.R. No. 159185 (Rep. Suplico et al. v. President

Macapagal-Arroyo and Executive Secretary Romulo),
They came in the middle of the night. Armed with high- petitioners brought suit as citizens and as Members of the
powered ammunitions and explosives, some 300 junior House of Representatives whose rights, powers and
officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the functions were allegedly affected by the declaration of a
Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premiere state of rebellion. Petitioners do not challenge the power of
apartments in Makati City in the wee hours of July 27, the President to call out the Armed Forces. They argue,
2003. Bewailing the corruption in the AFP, the soldiers however, that the declaration of a state of rebellion is a
demanded, among other things, the resignation of the "superfluity," and is actually an exercise of emergency
President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of the powers. Such exercise, it is contended, amounts to a
Philippine National Police (PNP). usurpation of the power of Congress granted by Section 23
(2), Article VI of the Constitution.
In the wake of the Oakwood occupation, the President
issued later in the day Proclamation No. 427 and General In G.R. No. 159196 (Pimentel v. Romulo, et al.), petitioner
Order No. 4, both declaring "a state of rebellion" Senator assails the subject presidential issuances as "an
thereafter, she issued GENERAL ORDER NO. 4 directing unwarranted, illegal and abusive exercise of a martial law
officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines power that has no basis under the Constitution." In the
and the Philippine National Police to immediately carry main, petitioner fears that the declaration of a state of
out the necessary and appropriate actions and measures to rebellion "opens the door to the unconstitutional
suppress and quell the rebellion with due regard to implementation of warrantless arrests" for the crime of
constitutional rights. rebellion.

By the evening of July 27, 2003, the Oakwood occupation Required to comment, the Solicitor General argues that the
had ended. After hours-long negotiations, the soldiers petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of the
agreed to return to barracks. The President, however, did declaration. In addition, the Solicitor General questions the
not immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion standing of the petitioners to bring suit.
and did so only on August 1, 2003, through Proclamation
No. 435:DECLARING THAT THE STATE OF REBELLION ISSUE: W/N the President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
HAS CEASED TO EXIST declared martial law

In G.R. No. 159085 (Sanlakas and PM v. Executive Secretary, RULING: No. The president merely declare a state
et al.), party-list organizations Sanlakas and Partido ng rebellion and it does not amount to declaration of
Manggagawa (PM), contend that Section 18, Article VII of martial law
the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state
of rebellion to call out the armed forces. They further
submit that, because of the cessation of the Oakwood
occupation, there exists no sufficient factual basis for the
Lay to rest the validity of the declaration of a state of and accepted. The United States introduced the expanded
rebellion in the exercise of the President's calling out presidential powers in the Philippines through the
power, the mootness of the petitions notwithstanding. Philippine Bill of 1902. Later, the grant of the power was
incorporated in the Constitution.
That petitioner SJS officers/members are taxpayers and
Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
citizens does not necessarily endow them with standing. A
states: "The executive power shall be vested in the
taxpayer may bring suit where the act complained of
President…."
directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds
derived from taxation. No such illegal disbursement is
alleged. Thus, the plenitude of the powers of the presidency equips
the occupant with the means to address exigencies or
threats which undermine the very existence of
On the other hand, a citizen will be allowed to raise a
government or the integrity of the State.
constitutional question only when he can show that he has
personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a
result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; The President's authority to declare a state of rebellion
the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and springs in the main from her powers as chief executive
the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. and, at the same time, draws strength from her
Again, no such injury is alleged in this case. Commander-in-Chief powers. Indeed, as the Solicitor
General accurately points out, statutory authority for such
a declaration may be found in Section 4, Chapter 2
Even granting these petitioners have standing on the
(Ordinance Power), Book III (Office of the President) of the
ground that the issues they raise are of transcendental
Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which states:
importance, the petitions must fail.

SEC. 4. Proclamations. – Acts of the President fixing a date

It is true that for the purpose of exercising the calling out
or declaring a status or condition of public moment or
power the Constitution does not require the President to
interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a
make a declaration of a state of rebellion. Section 18,
specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be
Article VII provides:
promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of
an executive order.
Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of
all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, in calling out
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces
the armed forces, a declaration of a state of rebellion is an
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
utter superfluity. At most, it only gives notice to the nation
rebellion.
that such a state exists and that the armed forces may be
called to prevent or suppress it. Perhaps the declaration
The above provision grants the President, as Commander- may wreak emotional effects upon the perceived enemies
in-Chief, a "sequence" of "graduated power[s]." From the of the State, even on the entire nation. But this Court's
most to the least benign, these are: the calling out power, mandate is to probe only into the legal consequences of the
the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas declaration. This Court finds that such a declaration is
corpus, and the power to declare martial law. In the devoid of any legal significance. For all legal intents, the
exercise of the latter two powers, the Constitution requires declaration is deemed not written.
the concurrence of two conditions, namely, an actual
invasion or rebellion, and that public safety requires the
Should there be any "confusion" generated by the issuance
exercise of such power. However, as we observed
of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, we
in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 32 "[t]hese
clarify that, as the dissenters in Lacson correctly pointed
conditions are not required in the exercise of the calling
out, the mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot
out power. The only criterion is that 'whenever it becomes
diminish or violate constitutionally protected rights.
necessary,' the President may call the armed forces 'to
Indeed, if a state of martial law does not suspend the
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
operation of the Constitution or automatically suspend the
rebellion.'"
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, then it is with more
reason that a simple declaration of a state of rebellion
Nevertheless, it is equally true that Section 18, Article VII could not bring about these conditions. At any rate, the
does not expressly prohibit the President from declaring a presidential issuances themselves call for the suppression
state of rebellion. Note that the Constitution vests the of the rebellion "with due regard to constitutional rights."
President not only with Commander-in-Chief powers but,
first and foremost, with Executive powers. In the course of
For the same reasons, apprehensions that the military and
time, the U.S. President's power to call out armed forces
police authorities may resort to warrantless arrests are
and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
likewise unfounded. In Lacson vs. Perez, supra, majority of
corpus without prior legislative approval, in case of
the Court held that "[i]n quelling or suppressing the
invasion, insurrection, or rebellion came to be recognized
rebellion, the authorities may only resort to warrantless
arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided costs. They called upon the people to "show and proclaim
under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, if the our displeasure at the sham regime. Let us demonstrate our
circumstances so warrant. The warrantless arrest feared disgust, not only by going to the streets in protest, but also
by petitioners is, thus, not based on the declaration of a by wearing red bands on our left arms."
'state of rebellion.' In other words, a person may be
subjected to a warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion On February 17, 2006, the authorities got hold of a
whether or not the President has declared a state of document entitled "Oplan Hackle I " which detailed plans
rebellion, so long as the requisites for a valid warrantless for bombings and attacks during the Philippine Military
arrest are present. Academy Alumni Homecoming in Baguio City and to
assassinate selected targets including some cabinet
It is not disputed that the President has full discretionary members and President Arroyo herself. Upon the advice of
power to call out the armed forces and to determine the her security, President Arroyo decided not to attend the
necessity for the exercise of such power. While the Court Alumni Homecoming. The next day, at the height of the
may examine whether the power was exercised within celebration, a bomb was found and detonated at the PMA
constitutional limits or in a manner constituting grave parade ground.
abuse of discretion, none of the petitioners here have, by
way of proof, supported their assertion that the President On February 21, 2006, Lt. San Juan was recaptured in a
acted without factual basis. communist safehouse in Batangas province. Found in his
possession were 2 flash disks containing minutes of the
The argument that the declaration of a state of meetings between members of the Magdalo Group and the
rebellion amounts to a declaration of martial law and, NPA, a tape recorder, audio cassette cartridges, diskettes,
therefore, is a circumvention of the report and copies of subversive documents. Prior to his arrest, Lt.
requirement, is a leap of logic. There is no indication San Juan announced through DZRH that the "Magdalo's D-
that military tribunals have replaced civil courts in the Day would be on February 24, 2006, the 20th Anniversary of
"theater of war" or that military authorities have Edsa I."
taken over the functions of civil government. There is
no allegation of curtailment of civil or political rights. On February 23, 2006, PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao
There is no indication that the President has exercised intercepted information that members of the PNP - Special
judicial and legislative powers. In short, there is no Action Force were planning to defect. Thus, he
illustration that the President has attempted to immediately ordered SAF Commanding General Marcelino
exercise or has exercised martial law powers. Franco, Jr. to "disavow" any defection.

The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in On the same day, at the house of former Congressman
calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a Peping Cojuangco, President Cory Aquino's brother,
wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in- businessmen and mid-level government officials plotted
Chief powers. These are purely executive powers, vested moves to bring down the Arroyo administration. Nelly
on the President by Sections 1 and 18, Article VII, as Sindayen of TIME Magazine reported that Pastor Saycon,
opposed to the delegated legislative powers longtime Arroyo critic, called a U.S. government official
contemplated by Section 23 (2), Article VI. about his group's plans if President Arroyo is ousted.
Saycon also phoned a man code-named Delta. Saycon
identified him as B/Gen. Danilo Lim, Commander of the
Army's elite Scout Ranger. Lim said "it was all systems go
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo for the planned movement against Arroyo."

DOCTRINE: B/Gen. Danilo Lim and Brigade Commander Col. Ariel

FACTS: Querubin confided to Gen. Generoso Senga, Chief of Staff of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), that a huge
On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th number of soldiers would join the rallies to provide a
Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo critical mass and armed component to the Anti-Arroyo
issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. protests to be held on February 24, 2005. According to
these 2 officers, there was no way they could possibly stop
the soldiers because they too, were breaking the chain of
She cited the following facts as bases:
command to join the forces foist to unseat the President.
However, Gen. Senga has remained faithful to his
In January 2006, Captain Nathaniel Rabonza and First Commander-in-Chief and to the chain of command. He
Lieutenants Sonny Sarmiento, Lawrence San Juan and immediately took custody of B/Gen. Lim.
Patricio Bumidang, members of the Magdalo Group
indicted in the Oakwood mutiny, escaped their detention
Earlier, the CPP-NPA called for intensification of political
cell in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City. In a public statement,
and revolutionary work within the military and the police
they vowed to remain defiant and to elude arrest at all
establishments in order to forge alliances with its
members and key officials. NPA spokesman Gregorio "Ka -Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced
Roger" Rosal declared: "The Communist Party and that "warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities,
revolutionary movement and the entire people look forward including media, can already be implemented."
to the possibility in the coming year of accomplishing its
immediate task of bringing down the Arroyo regime” -Undeterred by the announcements that rallies and public
assemblies would not be allowed, groups of protesters
On the other hand, Cesar Renerio, spokesman for the (members of Kilusang Mayo Uno [KMU] and National
National Democratic Front (NDF) at North Central Federation of Labor Unions - Kilusang Mayo Uno [NAFLU-
Mindanao, publicly announced: "Anti-Arroyo groups within KMU]), marched from various parts of Metro Manila with
the military and police are growing rapidly, hastened by the the intention of converging at the EDSA shrine.
economic difficulties suffered by the families of AFP officers
and enlisted personnel who undertake counter-insurgency -Those who were already near the EDSA site were
operations in the field." He claimed that with the forces of violently dispersed by huge clusters of anti-riot police. The
the national democratic movement, the anti-Arroyo well-trained policemen used truncheons, big fiber glass
conservative political parties, coalitions, plus the groups shields, water cannons, and tear gas to stop and break up
that have been reinforcing since June 2005, it is probable the marching groups, and scatter the massed participants.
that the President's ouster is nearing its concluding stage The same police action was used against the protesters
in the first half of 2006. marching forward to Cubao, Quezon City and to the corner
of Santolan Street and EDSA. That same evening, hundreds
Respondents further claimed that the bombing of of riot policemen broke up an EDSA celebration rally held
telecommunication towers and cell sites in Bulacan and along Ayala Avenue and Paseo de Roxas Street in Makati
Bataan was also considered as additional factual basis for City.
the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. So is the raid of an
army outpost in Benguet resulting in the death of three (3) According to petitioner Kilusang Mayo Uno, the police cited
soldiers. And also the directive of the Communist Party of PP 1017 as the ground for the dispersal of their
the Philippines ordering its front organizations to join assemblies.
5,000 Metro Manila radicals and 25,000 more from the
provinces in mass protests. -During the dispersal of the rallyists along EDSA, police
arrested (without warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a
By midnight of February 23, 2006, the President convened professor at the University of the Philippines and
her security advisers and several cabinet members to newspaper columnist. Also arrested was his companion,
assess the gravity of the fermenting peace and order Ronald Llamas, president of party-list Akbayan.
situation. She directed both the AFP and the PNP to
account for all their men and ensure that the chain of -At around 12:20 in the early morning of February 25,
command remains solid and undivided. To protect the 2006, operatives of the Criminal Investigation and
young students from any possible trouble that might break Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP, on the basis of PP 1017
loose on the streets, the President suspended classes in all and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila.
levels in the entire NCR.
-The raiding team confiscated news stories by reporters,
Thereafter on February 24, 2006 the President Arroyo documents, pictures, and mock-ups of the Saturday issue.
issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. Policemen from Camp Crame in Quezon City were
stationed inside the editorial and business offices of the
On the same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5 directing newspaper; while policemen from the Manila Police
the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Chief of the PNP, as District were stationed outside the building.
well as the officers and men of the AFP and PNP, to
immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate A few minutes after the search and seizure at the Daily
actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of Tribune offices, the police surrounded the premises of
terrorism and lawless violence. another pro-opposition paper, Malaya, and its sister
publication, the tabloid Abante.
AFTER ISSUANCE OF PP & GO
The raid, according to Presidential Chief of Staff Michael
-The Office of the President announced the cancellation of Defensor, is"meant to show a 'strong presence,' to tell media
all programs and activities related to the 20th anniversary outlets not to connive or do anything that would help the
celebration of Edsa People Power I; and revoked the rebels in bringing down this government." The PNP warned
permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local that it would take over any media organization that would
governments. not follow "standards set by the government during the
state of national emergency." Director General Lomibao
stated that "if they do not follow the standards' and the
standards are - if they would contribute to instability in the
government, or if they do not subscribe to what is in General guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and of
Order No. 5 and Proc. No. 1017 'we will recommend a assembly.
'takeover.' " National Telecommunications' Commissioner
Ronald Solis urged television and radio networks In G.R. No. 171409, petitioners Ninez Cacho-Olivares
to "cooperate" with the government for the duration of the and TribunePublishing Co., Inc. challenged the CIDG's act of
state of national emergency. He asked for "balanced raiding the Daily Tribuneoffices as a clear case of
reporting" from broadcasters when covering the events "censorship" or "prior restraint." They also claimed that
surrounding the coup attempt foiled by the government. the term "emergency" refers only to tsunami, typhoon,
He warned that his agency will not hesitate to recommend hurricane and similar occurrences, hence, there is
the closure of any broadcast outfit that violates rules set "absolutely no emergency" that warrants the issuance of PP
out for media coverage when the national security is 1017.
threatened.14
In G.R. No. 171485, petitioners herein are Representative
-Also, on February 25, 2006, the police arrested Francis Joseph G. Escudero, and twenty one (21) other
Congressman Crispin Beltran, representing members of the House of Representatives, including
the Anakpawis Party and Chairman of Kilusang Mayo Representatives Satur Ocampo, Rafael Mariano, Teodoro
Uno (KMU), while leaving his farmhouse in Bulacan. The Casiño, Liza Maza, and Josel Virador. They asserted that PP
police showed a warrant for his arrest dated 1985. 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitute "usurpation of legislative
Beltran's lawyer explained that the warrant, which powers"; "violation of freedom of expression" and "a
stemmed from a case of inciting to rebellion filed during declaration of martial law." They alleged that President
the Marcos regime, had long been quashed. Beltran, Arroyo "gravely abused her discretion in calling out the
however, is not a party in any of these petitions. armed forces without clear and verifiable factual basis of the
possibility of lawless violence and a showing that there is
-2 members of KMU were arrested and detained after they necessity to do so."
went to Camp Crame to visit Beltran, while the rest were
dispersed by the police. In G.R. No. 171483,petitioners KMU, NAFLU-KMU, and
their members averred that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are
Bayan Muna Representative Satur Ocampo eluded arrest unconstitutional because (1) they arrogate unto President
when the police went after him during a public forum at Arroyo the power to enact laws and decrees; (2) their
the Sulo Hotel in Quezon City. But his 2 drivers, identified issuance was without factual basis; and (3) they violate
as Roel and Art, were taken into custody. freedom of expression and the right of the people to
peaceably assemble to redress their grievances.
-Retired Major General Ramon Montaño, former head of
the Philippine Constabulary, was arrested while with his In G.R. No. 171400, petitioner Alternative Law Groups,
wife and golfmates at the Orchard Golf and Country Club in Inc. (ALGI) alleged that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are
Dasmariñas, Cavite. unconstitutional because they violate (a) Section 415 of
Article II, (b) Sections 1,16 2,17 and 418 of Article
-Attempts were made to arrest Anakpawis Representative III, (c) Section 2319 of Article VI, and (d) Section 1720 of
Satur Ocampo, Representative Rafael Mariano, Bayan Article XII of the Constitution.
Muna Representative Teodoro Casiño and Gabriela
Representative Liza Maza. Bayan Muna Representative In G.R. No. 171489, petitioners Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz et
Josel Virador was arrested at the PAL Ticket Office in al., alleged that PP 1017 is an "arbitrary and unlawful
Davao City. Later, he was turned over to the custody of the exercise by the President of her Martial Law powers." And
House of Representatives where the "Batasan 5" decided assuming that PP 1017 is not really a declaration of Martial
to stay indefinitely. Law, petitioners argued that "it amounts to an exercise by
the President of emergency powers without congressional
On March 3, 2006, President Arroyo issued PP 1021 approval." In addition, petitioners asserted that PP 1017
declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased "goes beyond the nature and function of a proclamation as
to exist. defined under the Revised Administrative Code."

In the interim, these seven (7) petitions challenging the And lastly, in G.R. No. 171424,petitionerLoren B. Legarda
constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 were filed with maintained that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are
this Court against the above-named respondents. "unconstitutional for being violative of the freedom of
expression, including its cognate rights such as freedom of
G.R. No. 171396, petitioners Randolf S. David, et al. the press and the right to access to information on matters
assailed PP 1017 on the grounds that (1) it encroaches on of public concern, all guaranteed under Article III, Section 4
the emergency powers of Congress; (2) itis a subterfuge to of the 1987 Constitution." In this regard, she stated that
avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of these issuances prevented her from fully prosecuting her
martial law; and (3) it violates the constitutional election protest pending before the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal.
In respondents' Consolidated Comment, the Solicitor "as provided in Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution
General countered that: first, the petitions should be do hereby declare a State of National Emergency."
dismissed for being moot; second,petitioners in G.R. NOS.
171400 (ALGI), 171424 (Legarda), 171483 (KMU et al.), First Provision: Calling-out Power
171485 (Escudero et al.) and 171489 (Cadiz et al.) have no
legal standing; third, it is not necessary for petitioners to The first provision pertains to the President’s calling-out
implead President Arroyo as respondent; fourth, PP 1017 power.
has constitutional and legal basis; and fifth, PP 1017 does
not violate the people's right to free expression and
redress of grievances. Respondents stated that the Under the calling-out power, the President may summon
proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the the armed forces to aid him in suppressing lawless
conspiracy among some military officers, leftist insurgents violence, invasion and rebellion. This involves ordinary
of the New People's Army (NPA), and some members of police action. But every act that goes beyond the
the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President’s calling-out power is considered illegal or ultra
President Arroyo.4They considered the aim to oust or vires. For this reason, a President must be careful in the
assassinate the President and take-over the reigns of exercise of his powers. He cannot invoke a greater power
government as a clear and present danger. The Solicitor when he wishes to act under a lesser power. There lies the
General argued that the intent of the Constitution is to give wisdom of our Constitution, the greater the power, the
full discretionary powers to the President in determining greater are the limitations.
the necessity of calling out the armed forces. He
emphasized that none of the petitioners has shown that PP It is pertinent to state, however, that there is a distinction
1017 was without factual bases. between the President’s authority to declare a "state of
rebellion" (in Sanlakas) and the authority to proclaim a
ISSUE: Whether PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are state of national emergency. While President Arroyo’s
authority to declare a "state of rebellion" emanates from
unconstitutional.
her powers as Chief Executive
RULING: PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes
President Arroyo’s declaration of a "state of rebellion" was
a call by the President for the AFP to prevent or
merely an act declaring a status or condition of public
suppress lawless violence. The proclamation is sustained moment or interest, a declaration allowed under Section 4
by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution and the cited above. Such declaration, in the words of Sanlakas, is
relevant jurisprudence discussed earlier. However, PP harmless, without legal significance, and deemed not
1017’s extraneous provisions giving the President express written. In these cases, PP 1017 is more than that. In
or implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP declaring a state of national emergency, President Arroyo
to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to did not only rely on Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution, a provision calling on the AFP to prevent or
lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. She also
President; and (3) to impose standards on media or any relied on Section 17, Article XII, a provision on the State’s
form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra extraordinary power to take over privately-owned public
vires and unconstitutional. The Court also rules that utility and business affected with public interest. Indeed,
under Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution, the PP 1017 calls for the exercise of an awesome power.
President, in the absence of a legislation, cannot take over Obviously, such Proclamation cannot be deemed harmless,
without legal significance, or not written, as in the case
privately-owned public utility and private business
of Sanlakas.
affected with public interest.
Some of the petitioners vehemently maintain that PP 1017
The operative portion of PP 1017 may be divided into is actually a declaration of Martial Law. It is no so. What
three important provisions, thus: defines the character of PP 1017 are its wordings. It is
plain therein that what the President invoked was her
First provision: calling-out power.
"by virtue of the power vested upon me by Section 18,
Artilce VII … do hereby command the Armed Forces of the The declaration of Martial Law is a "warn[ing] to citizens
Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the that the military power has been called upon by the
Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless executive to assist in the maintenance of law and order,
violence as well any act of insurrection or rebellion" and that, while the emergency lasts, they must, upon pain
Second provision: of arrest and punishment, not commit any acts which will
"and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, in any way render more difficult the restoration of order
orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or and the enforcement of law."113
upon my direction;"
Third provision:
In his "Statement before the Senate Committee on Justice" by Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph (2) of the
on March 13, 2006, Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza,114an Constitution, do hereby place the entire Philippines as
authority in constitutional law, said that of the three defined in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution under
powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief, the martial law and, in my capacity as their Commander-in-
power to declare Martial Law poses the most severe threat Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the
to civil liberties. It is a strong medicine which should not Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the
be resorted to lightly. It cannot be used to stifle or Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless
persecute critics of the government. It is placed in the violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion
keeping of the President for the purpose of enabling him to and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees,
secure the people from harm and to restore order so that orders and regulations promulgated by me personally
they can enjoy their individual freedoms. or upon my direction.

Ju stice Mendoza also stated that PP 1017 is not a We all know that it was PP 1081 which granted President
declaration of Martial Law. It is no more than a call by the Marcos legislative power. Its enabling clause states: "to
President to the armed forces to prevent or suppress enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees, orders
lawless violence. As such, it cannot be used to justify acts and regulations promulgated by me personally or
that only under a valid declaration of Martial Law can be upon my direction." Upon the other hand, the enabling
done. Its use for any other purpose is a perversion of its clause of PP 1017 issued by President Arroyo is: to
nature and scope, and any act done contrary to its enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees,
command is ultra vires. orders and regulations promulgated by me personally
or upon my direction."
Justice Mendoza further stated that specifically, (a) arrests
and seizures without judicial warrants; (b) ban on public Is it within the domain of President Arroyo to promulgate
assemblies; (c) take-over of news media and agencies and "decrees"?
press censorship; and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees,
are powers which can be exercised by the President as PP 1017 states in part: "to enforce obedience to all the
Commander-in-Chief only where there is a valid laws and decrees x x x promulgated by me personally
declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the writ or upon my direction."
of habeas corpus. The President is granted an Ordinance Power under
Chapter 2, Book III of Executive Order No. 292
Based on the above disquisition, it is clear that PP 1017 is (Administrative Code of 1987). She may issue any of the
not a declaration of Martial Law. It is merely an exercise following:
of President Arroyo’s calling-out power for the armed Sec. 2. Executive Orders. — Acts of the President providing
forces to assist her in preventing or suppressing lawless for rules of a general or permanent character in
violence. implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory
powers shall be promulgated in executive orders.
As the Executive in whom the executive power is Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. — Acts of the President
vested,115 the primary function of the President is to which relate to particular aspect of governmental
enforce the laws as well as to formulate policies to be operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative
embodied in existing laws. He sees to it that all laws are head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.
enforced by the officials and employees of his department. Sec. 4. Proclamations. — Acts of the President fixing a date
or declaring a status or condition of public moment or
oners, especially Representatives Francis Joseph G. interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a
Escudero, Satur Ocampo, Rafael Mariano, Teodoro Casiño, specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be
Liza Maza, and Josel Virador argue that PP 1017 is promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force
unconstitutional as it arrogated upon President Arroyo the of an executive order.
power to enact laws and decrees in violation of Section 1, Sec. 5. Memorandum Orders. — Acts of the President on
Article VI of the Constitution, which vests the power to matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or
enact laws in Congress. They assail the clause "to enforce temporary interest which only concern a particular officer
obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and or office of the Government shall be embodied in
regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my memorandum orders.
direction." Sec. 6. Memorandum Circulars. — Acts of the President on
matters relating to internal administration, which the
President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of
Petitioners’ contention is understandable. A reading of PP the departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the
1017 operative clause shows that it was lifted120 from Government, for information or compliance, shall be
Former President Marcos’ Proclamation No. 1081, which embodied in memorandum circulars.
partly reads: Sec. 7. General or Special Orders. — Acts and commands of
the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President
of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested upon me
Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as general A distinction must be drawn between the President’s
or special orders. authority to declare "a state of national emergency" and
President Arroyo’s ordinance power is limited to the to exercise emergency powers. To the first, as elucidated
foregoing issuances. She cannot issue decrees similar to by the Court, Section 18, Article VII grants the President
those issued by Former President Marcos under PP 1081. such power, hence, no legitimate constitutional objection
Presidential Decrees are laws which are of the same can be raised. But to the second, manifold constitutional
category and binding force as statutes because they were issues arise.
issued by the President in the exercise of his legislative
power during the period of Martial Law under the 1973 Section 23, Article VI of the Constitution reads:
Constitution.121
SEC. 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both
This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017 is Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall
unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo have the sole power to declare the existence of a state
the authority to promulgate "decrees." of war.

The import of this provision is that President Arroyo, (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the
during the state of national emergency under PP 1017, can Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a
call the military not only to enforce obedience "to all the limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
laws and to all decrees x x x" but also to act pursuant to the prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
provision of Section 17, Article XII which reads: carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers
Sec. 17. In times of national emergency, when the public shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency
and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily It may be pointed out that the second paragraph of the
take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned above provision refers not only to war but also to "other
public utility or business affected with public interest. national emergency." If the intention of the Framers of
our Constitution was to withhold from the President the
What could be the reason of President Arroyo in invoking authority to declare a "state of national emergency"
the above provision when she issued PP 1017? pursuant to Section 18, Article VII (calling-out power) and
grant it to Congress (like the declaration of the existence of
The answer is simple. During the existence of the state of a state of war), then the Framers could have provided so.
national emergency, PP 1017 purports to grant the Clearly, they did not intend that Congress should first
President, without any authority or delegation from authorize the President before he can declare a "state of
Congress, to take over or direct the operation of any national emergency." The logical conclusion then is that
privately-owned public utility or business affected with President Arroyo could validly declare the existence of a
public interest. state of national emergency even in the absence of a
Congressional enactment.
This provision was first introduced in the 1973
Constitution, as a product of the "martial law" thinking of But the exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking
the 1971 Constitutional Convention.122 In effect at the time over of privately owned public utility or business affected
of its approval was President Marcos’ Letter of Instruction with public interest, is a different matter. This requires a
No. 2 dated September 22, 1972 instructing the Secretary delegation from Congress.
of National Defense to take over "the management, control
and operation of the Manila Electric Company, the Courts have often said that constitutional provisions
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, the National in pari materia are to be construed together. Otherwise
Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, the Philippine stated, different clauses, sections, and provisions of a
National Railways, the Philippine Air Lines, Air Manila (and) constitution which relate to the same subject matter will
Filipinas Orient Airways . . . for the successful prosecution by be construed together and considered in the light of each
the Government of its effort to contain, solve and end the other.123 Considering that Section 17 of Article XII and
present national emergency." Section 23 of Article VI, previously quoted, relate to
national emergencies, they must be read together to
Petitioners, particularly the members of the House of determine the limitation of the exercise of emergency
Representatives, claim that President Arroyo’s inclusion of powers.
Section 17, Article XII in PP 1017 is an encroachment on
the legislature’s emergency powers. Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency
powers. This is evident in the tenor of Section 23 (2),
This is an area that needs delineation. Article VI authorizing it to delegate such powers to the
President. Certainly, a body cannot delegate a power
not reposed upon it. However, knowing that during grave
emergencies, it may not be possible or practicable for
Congress to meet and exercise its powers, the Framers of nothing in PP 1017 allowing the police, expressly or
our Constitution deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant impliedly, to conduct illegal arrest, search or violate the
emergency powers to the President, subject to certain citizens’ constitutional rights.
conditions, thus:

(1) There must be a war or other emergency.

(2) The delegation must be for a limited period only. Gudani v. Senga
(3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions
as the Congress may prescribe. DOCTRINE:
(4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out
a national policy declared by Congress. President as chief- commander; senate requires
officers of afp to appear bef its hearing tapos nag issue
Section 17, Article XII must be understood as an aspect of ng order pres na hindi sila pwde pumunta w/o
the emergency powers clause. The taking over of private President authority
business affected with public interest is just another facet
of the emergency powers generally reposed upon ACTS:
Congress. Thus, when Section 17 states that the "the State
may, during the emergency and under reasonable ISSUE:
terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct
the operation of any privately owned public utility or RULING:
business affected with public interest," it refers to
Congress, not the President. Now, whether or not the
President may exercise such power is dependent on
whether Congress may delegate it to him pursuant to a law Ampatuan v. Puno
prescribing the reasonable terms thereof.
DOCTRINE:
“emergency," as contemplated in our Constitution, is of the FACTS:
same breadth. It may include rebellion, economic crisis,
pestilence or epidemic, typhoon, flood, or other similar
catastrophe of nationwide proportions or effect. On November 24, 2009, the day after the gruesome
massacre of 57 men and women, including some news
reporters, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued
Following our interpretation of Section 17, Article XII, Proclamation 1946,1 placing "the Provinces of
invoked by President Arroyo in issuing PP 1017, this Court Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato
rules that such Proclamation does not authorize her during under a state of emergency." She directed the Armed
the emergency to temporarily take over or direct the Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National
operation of any privately owned public utility or business Police (PNP) "to undertake such measures as may be
affected with public interest without authority from allowed by the Constitution and by law to prevent and
Congress. suppress all incidents of lawless violence" in the named
places.
Let it be emphasized that while the President alone can
declare a state of national emergency, however, without Three days later or on November 27, President Arroyo also
legislation, he has no power to take over privately-owned issued Administrative Order 273 (AO 273)2"transferring"
public utility or business affected with public interest. The supervision of the Autonomous Region of Muslim
President cannot decide whether exceptional Mindanao (ARMM) from the Office of the President to the
circumstances exist warranting the take over of privately- Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). But,
owned public utility or business affected with public due to issues raised over the terminology used in AO 273,
interest. Nor can he determine when such exceptional the President issued Administrative Order 273-A (AO 273-
circumstances have ceased. Likewise, without A) amending the former, by "delegating" instead of
legislation, the President has no power to point out the "transferring" supervision of the ARMM to the DILG.3
types of businesses affected with public interest that
should be taken over. In short, the President has no
absolute authority to exercise all the powers of the State Claiming that the President’s issuances encroached on the
under Section 17, Article VII in the absence of an ARMM’s autonomy, petitioners Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan,
emergency powers act passed by Congress. Ansaruddin Adiong, and Regie Sahali-Generale, all ARMM
officials,4 filed this petition for prohibition under Rule 65.
They alleged that the proclamation and the orders
PP 1017 is merely an invocation of the President’s calling- empowered the DILG Secretary to take over ARMM’s
out power. Its general purpose is to command the AFP to operations and seize the regional government’s powers
suppress all forms of lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. It had accomplished the end desired which
prompted President Arroyo to issue PP 1021. But there is
Petitioner ARMM officials claimed that the President had necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
no factual basis for declaring a state of emergency, policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
especially in the Province of Sultan Kudarat and the City of Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.
Cotabato, where no critical violent incidents occurred. The
deployment of troops and the taking over of the ARMM
The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only
constitutes an invalid exercise of the President’s
a state of emergency in the three places mentioned. And
emergency powers.6 Petitioners asked that Proclamation she did not act pursuant to any law enacted by Congress
1946 as well as AOs 273 and 273-A be declared that authorized her to exercise extraordinary powers. The
unconstitutional and that respondents DILG Secretary, the calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress
AFP, and the PNP be enjoined from implementing them. lawless violence in such places is a power that the
Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not
need a congressional authority to exercise the same.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) insisted that the
President issued Proclamation 1946, not to deprive the
ARMM of its autonomy, but to restore peace and order in (2)The President’s call on the armed forces to prevent or
subject places.8She issued the proclamation pursuant to suppress lawless violence springs from the power vested
her "calling out" power9 as Commander-in-Chief under the in her under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution,
first sentence of Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. which provides.17
The determination of the need to exercise this power rests
solely on her wisdom.10 She must use her judgment based SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-
on intelligence reports and such best information as are Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
available to her to call out the armed forces to suppress becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
and prevent lawless violence wherever and whenever prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
these reared their ugly heads. rebellion. x x x

On the other hand, the President merely delegated through While it is true that the Court may inquire into the factual
AOs 273 and 273-A her supervisory powers over the bases for the President’s exercise of the above power, 18 it
ARMM to the DILG Secretary who was her alter ego any would generally defer to her judgment on the matter. As
way. These orders did not authorize a take over of the the Court acknowledged in Integrated Bar of the
ARMM. They did not give him blanket authority to suspend Philippines v. Hon. Zamora,19 it is clearly to the President
or replace ARMM officials.11 The delegation was necessary that the Constitution entrusts the determination of the
to facilitate the investigation of the mass need for calling out the armed forces to prevent and
killings.12 Further, the assailed proclamation and suppress lawless violence. Unless it is shown that such
administrative orders did not provide for the exercise of determination was attended by grave abuse of discretion,
emergency powers. the Court will accord respect to the President’s judgment.
Thus, the Court said:
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not President Arroyo invalidly
exercised emergency powers when she called out the AFP If the petitioner fails, by way of proof, to support the
and the PNP to prevent and suppress all incidents of assertion that the President acted without factual basis,
then this Court cannot undertake an independent
lawless violence in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and
investigation beyond the pleadings. The factual necessity
Cotabato City- NO of calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable
and cannot be objectively established since matters
(2) whether or not the President had factual bases for her considered for satisfying the same is a combination of
actions- YES several factors which are not always accessible to the
courts
RULING:
The President, as Commander-in-Chief has a vast
(1)Petitioners contend that the President unlawfully intelligence network to gather information, some of which
exercised emergency powers when she ordered the may be classified as highly confidential or affecting the
deployment of AFP and PNP personnel in the places security of the state. In the exercise of the power to call,
mentioned in the proclamation.16 But such deployment is on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively necessary in
not by itself an exercise of emergency powers as emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives
understood under Section 23 (2), Article VI of the and mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to
Constitution, which provides: call out the military to prevent or suppress lawless
violence must be done swiftly and decisively if it were to
SECTION 23. x x x (2) In times of war or other national have any effect at all. x x x.20
emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to such Here, petitioners failed to show that the declaration of a
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers state of emergency in the Provinces of Maguindanao,
Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City, as well as the people and the authorities away from the multiple murder
President’s exercise of the "calling out" power had no case. x x x
factual basis. They simply alleged that, since not all areas
under the ARMM were placed under a state of emergency, In addition, two other factions of a RAG are likely to
it follows that the take over of the entire ARMM by the support the Mangudadatu family. The Cotabato-based
DILG Secretary had no basis too.21 faction has the strength of about five hundred (500)
persons and three hundred seventy-two (372) firearms
But, apart from the fact that there was no such take over to while the Sultan Kudarat-based faction has the strength of
begin with, the OSG also clearly explained the factual bases about four hundred (400) persons and three hundred
for the President’s decision to call out the armed forces, as (300) firearms and was reported to be moving towards
follows: Maguindanao to support the Mangudadatu clan in its
armed fight against the Ampatuans.22
The Ampatuan and Mangudadatu clans are prominent
families engaged in the political control of Maguindanao. It In other words, the imminence of violence and anarchy at
is also a known fact that both families have an arsenal of the time the President issued Proclamation 1946 was too
armed followers who hold elective positions in various grave to ignore and she had to act to prevent further
parts of the ARMM and the rest of Mindanao. bloodshed and hostilities in the places mentioned.
Progress reports also indicated that there was movement
Considering the fact that the principal victims of the brutal in these places of both high-powered firearms and armed
bloodshed are members of the Mangudadatu family and men sympathetic to the two clans.23 Thus, to pacify the
the main perpetrators of the brutal killings are members people’s fears and stabilize the situation, the President had
and followers of the Ampatuan family, both the military to take preventive action. She called out the armed forces
and police had to prepare for and prevent reported to control the proliferation of loose firearms and dismantle
retaliatory actions from the Mangudadatu clan and the armed groups that continuously threatened the peace
additional offensive measures from the Ampatuan clan. and security in the affected places.

The Ampatuan forces are estimated to be approximately

two thousand four hundred (2,400) persons, equipped
with about two thousand (2,000) firearms, about four Fortun v. Arroyo
hundred (400) of which have been accounted for. x x x
DOCTRINE:
As for the Mangudadatus, they have an estimated one FACTS:
thousand eight hundred (1,800) personnel, with about two
hundred (200) firearms. x x x On November 23, 2009 heavily armed men, believed led by
the ruling Ampatuan family, gunned down and buried
Apart from their own personal forces, both clans have under shoveled dirt 57 innocent civilians on a highway in
Special Civilian Auxiliary Army (SCAA) personnel who Maguindanao. In response to this carnage, on November
support them: about five hundred (500) for the 24 President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation
Ampatuans and three hundred (300) for the 1946, declaring a state of emergency in Maguindanao,
Mangudadatus. Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City to prevent and suppress
similar lawless violence in Central Mindanao.
What could be worse than the armed clash of two warring
clans and their armed supporters, especially in light of Believing that she needed greater authority to put order in
intelligence reports on the potential involvement of rebel Maguindanao and secure it from large groups of persons
armed groups (RAGs). that have taken up arms against the constituted authorities
in the province, on December 4, 2009 President Arroyo
One RAG was reported to have planned an attack on the issued Presidential Proclamation 1959 declaring martial
forces of Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. to show support and law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
sympathy for the victims. The said attack shall worsen the corpus in that province except for identified areas of the
age-old territorial dispute between the said RAG and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
Ampatuan family.
Two days later or on December 6, 2009 President Arroyo
On the other hand, RAG faction which is based in Sultan submitted her report to Congress in accordance with
Kudarat was reported to have received three million pesos Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which
(₱3,000,000.00) from Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. for the required her, within 48 hours from the proclamation of
procurement of ammunition. The said faction is a force to martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
reckon with because the group is well capable of launching habeas corpus, to submit to that body a report in person or
a series of violent activities to divert the attention of the in writing of her action.
In her report, President Arroyo said that she acted based regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation
on her finding that lawless men have taken up arms in or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by
Maguindanao and risen against the government. The the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
President described the scope of the uprising, the nature, Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
quantity, and quality of the rebels’ weaponry, the proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined
movement of their heavily armed units in strategic by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist
positions, the closure of the Maguindanao Provincial and public safety requires it.
Capitol, Ampatuan Municipal Hall, Datu Unsay Municipal
Hall, and 14 other municipal halls, and the use of armored The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
vehicles, tanks, and patrol cars with unauthorized hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene
"PNP/Police" markings. in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.

On December 9, 2009 Congress, in joint session, convened Although the above vests in the President the power to
pursuant to Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of
to review the validity of the President’s action. But, two habeas corpus, he shares such power with the Congress.
days later or on December 12 before Congress could act, Thus:
the President issued Presidential Proclamation 1963, 1. The President’s proclamation or suspension is
lifting martial law and restoring the privilege of the writ of temporary, good for only 60 days;
habeas corpus in Maguindanao. 2. He must, within 48 hours of the proclamation or
suspension, report his action in person or in writing to
Petitioners Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun and the other Congress;
petitioners in G.R. 190293, 190294, 190301,190302, 3. Both houses of Congress, if not in session must jointly
190307, 190356, and 190380 brought the present actions convene within 24 hours of the proclamation or
to challenge the constitutionality of President Arroyo’s suspension for the purpose of reviewing its validity; and
Proclamation 1959 affecting Maguindanao. But, given the 4. The Congress, voting jointly, may revoke or affirm the
prompt lifting of that proclamation before Congress could President’s proclamation or suspension, allow their
review it and before any serious question affecting the limited effectivity to lapse, or extend the same if Congress
rights and liberties of Maguindanao’s inhabitants could deems warranted.
arise, the Court deems any review of its constitutionality It is evident that under the 1987 Constitution the
the equivalent of beating a dead horse. President and the Congress act in tandem in exercising the
power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of
ISSUE: W/N the court may review the factual basis of the writ of habeas corpus. They exercise the power, not
the President for declaration of martial law only sequentially, but in a sense jointly since, after the
President has initiated the proclamation or the suspension,
RULING: No only the Congress can maintain the same based on its own
evaluation of the situation on the ground, a power that the
President does not have.
constitutionality of Proclamation 1959 is not unavoidable
for two reasons:
Consequently, although the Constitution reserves to the
Supreme Court the power to review the sufficiency of the
One. President Arroyo withdrew her proclamation of factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress to
habeas corpus before the joint houses of Congress could exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather
fulfill their automatic duty to review and validate or than initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its express
invalidate the same. The pertinent provisions of Section duty to defend the Constitution through such review
18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution state: should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The
constitutional validity of the President’s proclamation of
Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is
all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it first a political question in the hands of Congress before it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court.
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public Here, President Arroyo withdrew Proclamation 1959
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty before the joint houses of Congress, which had in fact
days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or convened, could act on the same. Consequently, the
place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial petitions in these cases have become moot and the Court
law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of has nothing to review. The lifting of martial law and
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of writ of restoration of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in Maguindanao was a supervening event that obliterated
person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting any justiciable controversy.2
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in
Two. Since President Arroyo withdrew her proclamation suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of Thus –
habeas corpus in just eight days, they have not been
meaningfully implemented. The military did not take over The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
the operation and control of local government units in proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
Maguindanao. The President did not issue any law or factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
decree affecting Maguindanao that should ordinarily be suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
enacted by Congress. No indiscriminate mass arrest had the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
been reported. Those who were arrested during the period thereon within thirty days from its filing. (Emphasis
were either released or promptly charged in court. Indeed, supplied)
no petition for habeas corpus had been filed with the Court
respecting arrests made in those eight days. The point is More than two years have passed since petitioners filed
that the President intended by her action to address an the present actions to annul Proclamation
uprising in a relatively small and sparsely populated 1959.1âwphi1 When the Court did not decide it then, it
province. In her judgment, the rebellion was localized and actually opted for a default as was its duty, the question
swiftly disintegrated in the face of a determined and amply having become moot and academic.
armed government presence.
Justice Carpio of course points out that should the Court
Here, however, the Court has not bothered to examine the regard the powers of the President and Congress
evidence upon which President Arroyo acted in issuing respecting the proclamation of martial law or the
Proclamation 1959, precisely because it felt no need to, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as
proclamation having been withdrawn within a few days of sequential or joint, it would be impossible for the Court to
its issuance. exercise its power of review within the 30 days given it.

Justice Antonio T. Carpio points out in his dissenting But those 30 days, fixed by the Constitution, should be
opinion the finding of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of enough for the Court to fulfill its duty without pre-empting
Quezon City that no probable cause exist that the accused congressional action. Section 18, Article VII, requires the
before it committed rebellion in Maguindanao since the President to report his actions to Congress, in person or in
prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime. writing, within 48 hours of such proclamation or
But the Court cannot use such finding as basis for striking suspension. In turn, the Congress is required to convene
down the President’s proclamation and suspension. without need of a call within 24 hours following the
For, firstly, the Court did not delegate and could not President’s proclamation or suspension. Clearly, the
delegate to the RTC of Quezon City its power to determine Constitution calls for quick action on the part of the
the factual basis for the presidential proclamation and Congress. Whatever form that action takes, therefore,
suspension. Secondly, there is no showing that the RTC of should give the Court sufficient time to fulfill its own
Quezon City passed upon the same evidence that the mandate to review the factual basis of the proclamation or
President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, suspension within 30 days of its issuance.
had in her possession when she issued the proclamation
and suspension.
If the Congress procrastinates or altogether fails to fulfill
its duty respecting the proclamation or suspension within
The Court does not resolve purely academic questions to the short time expected of it, then the Court can step in,
satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually hear the petitions challenging the President’s action, and
challenging these are.5 This is especially true, said the ascertain if it has a factual basis. If the Court finds none,
Court in Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities then it can annul the proclamation or the suspension. But
v. Secretary of Education,6 where the issues "reach what if the 30 days given it by the Constitution proves
constitutional dimensions, for then there comes into play inadequate? Justice Carpio himself offers the answer in his
regard for the court’s duty to avoid decision of dissent: that 30-day period does not operate to divest this
constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion." Court of its jurisdiction over the case. The settled rule is
The Court’s duty is to steer clear of declaring that jurisdiction once acquired is not lost until the case has
unconstitutional the acts of the Executive or the Legislative been terminated.
department, given the assumption that it carefully studied
those acts and found them consistent with the
fundamental law before taking them. "To doubt is to The problem in this case is that the President aborted the
sustain."7 proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao in
just eight days. In a real sense, the proclamation and the
Notably, under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 suspension never took off. The Congress itself adjourned
Constitution, the Court has only 30 days from the filing of without touching the matter, it having become moot and
an appropriate proceeding to review the sufficiency of the academic.
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
Of course, the Court has in exceptional cases passed upon On August 1, 2003, President Arroyo lifted her declaration
issues that ordinarily would have been regarded as moot. of a state of rebellion through Proclamation No. 435.
But the present cases do not present sufficient basis for the
exercise of the power of judicial review. The proclamation Meanwhile, on August 4, 2003, Secretary Jose Lina, Jr. of
of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the the Department of the Interior and Local Government,
writ of habeas corpus in this case, unlike similar forwarded to the DOJ the affidavit-complaint for coup
Presidential acts in the late 60s and early 70s, appear more d'etat of PC Chief Superintendent Eduardo Matillano
like saber-rattling than an actual deployment and arbitrary against Senator Gregorio Honasan, Ernesto Macahiya,
use of political power. George Duldulao and several "John and Jane Does"
numbering about 1,000.
Sanlakas v Exec Sec.
On August 8, 2003, PNP Chief Inspector Jesus Fernandez of
In the wee hours of July 27, 2003, three hundred twenty- the Eastern Police District referred to the DOJ an
three (323) junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed investigation report recommending that Enriquez and a
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) took over the Oakwood certain Romy Escalona be prosecuted for rebellion and
Premier Apartments, Ayala Center, Makati City. insurrection.
Introducing themselves as the "Magdalo Group," they
claimed that they went to Oakwood to air their grievances David v Arroyo [consolidated case w/ David v Ermita]
about graft and corruption in the military, the sale of arms (Topic: declaration of state rebellion vs. declaration of
and ammunitions to the "enemies" of the state, the state of national emergency)
bombings in Davao City allegedly ordered by Gen. Victor
Corpus, then Chief of the Intelligence Service of the Armed X Gudani v Senga (President as chief- commander; senate
Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP), the increased military requires officers of AFP to appear bef its hearing tapos nag
assistance from the United States, and
issue ng order pres na hindi sila pwde pumunta w/o
"micromanagement" in the AFP by Gen. Angelo Reyes, then
Secretary of the Department of National Defense.3 The President authority)
military men demanded the resignation of the President,
the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of the Ampatuan v Puno
Philippine National Police.
The Ampatuan and Mangudadatu clans are prominent
At about 9:00 A.M. of the same day, President Arroyo gave families engaged in the political control of Maguindanao. It
the Magdalo Group until 5:00 P.M. to give up their is also a known fact that both families have an arsenal of
positions peacefully and return to the barracks. At around armed followers who hold elective positions in various
1:00 P.M., she issued Proclamation No. 427 and General parts of the ARMM and the rest of Mindanao.
Order No. 4 declaring the existence of a "state of rebellion"
and calling out the AFP to suppress the rebellion. Considering the fact that the principal victims of the brutal
bloodshed are members of the Mangudadatu family and
Shortly before the 5:00 P.M. deadline, President Arroyo the main perpetrators of the brutal killings are members
announced an extension until 7:00 P.M. During the two- and followers of the Ampatuan family, both the military
hour reprieve, negotiations between the Magdalo Group and police had to prepare for and prevent reported
and various personalities took place. The rebels agreed to retaliatory actions from the Mangudadatu clan and
return to the barracks. They left the Oakwood premises at additional offensive measures from the Ampatuan clan.
11:00 P.M.
One RAG was reported to have planned an attack on the
On July 28, 2003, Agents of the National Bureau of forces of Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. to show support and
Investigation (NBI) searched the house owned by Ramon sympathy for the victims.
Cardenas at 2177 Paraiso St., Dasmariñas Village, Makati
City. After the raid and the recovery of evidence claimed to
link him to rebellion, Cardenas, accompanied by Atty. Rene
Saguisag, went to the CIDG in Camp Crame. On the same Fortun v Arroyo
day, Cardenas was brought to the Department of Justice for
inquest proceeding. He was later charged with the crime of
rebellion. Indeed, the nature, quantity and quality of their weaponry,
the movement of heavily armed rebels in strategic
positions, the closure of the Maguindanao Provincial
The Mandaluyong City Police likewise searched the
Capitol, Ampatuan Municipal Hall, Datu Unsay Municipal
townhouses belonging to Laarni Enriquez, allegedly used
Hall, and fourteen other municipal halls, and the use of
as staging areas by the Magdalo Group.
armored vehicles, tanks and patrol cars with unauthorized
"PNP/Police" markings, all together confirm the existence
of armed public uprising for the political purpose of:
1. removing allegiance from the national government of
the Province of Maguindanao; and,

2. depriving the Chief Executive of her powers and

prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to
maintain public order and safety.

While the government is at present conducting legitimate

operations to address the on-going rebellion, public safety
still requires the continued implementation of martial law
and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in the Province of Maguindanao until the time that
such rebellion is completely quelled.

Issue: w/n the proclamation is valid. NO

Ruling:

There is absolutely nothing which shows that the

Ampatuans and their armed followers, at any point in time,
intended to overthrow the government. On the contrary,
the Ampatuans were publicly known as very close political
allies of President Arroyo. There is not a single instance
where the Ampatuans denounced, expressly or impliedly,
the government, or attempted to remove allegiance to the
government or its laws or to deprive the President or
Congress of any of their powers. Based on the records,
what the government clearly established, among others,
were (1) the existence of the Ampatuans’ private army;
and (2) the Ampatuans’ vast collection of high powered
firearms and ammunitions.

These shocking discoveries, however, do not amount to

rebellion as defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal
Code. Based on the statements made by ranking
government and military officials, and as clearly found by
the RTC-Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-10-162667
and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there was no public
uprising and taking arms against the government for
the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the
government or its laws the territory of the Philippines
or any part thereof, or depriving the Chief Executive or
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers
and prerogatives. The Ampatuans’ amassing of
weaponry, including their collection of armored cars, tanks
and patrol cars, merely highlights this political clan’s
unbelievably excessive power and influence under the
Arroyo administration.

To repeat, only in case of actual invasion or rebellion,

when public safety requires it, may the President declare
martial law or suspend the writ. In declaring martial law
and suspending the writ in Maguindanao in the absence of
an actual rebellion, President Arroyo indisputably violated
the explicit provisions of Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution.